Share This Page

U.S. says drone didn't hit school

| Thursday, Nov. 21, 2013, 10:03 p.m.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — American and Pakistani officials sharply disagreed on Thursday about whether an Islamic school was struck by a U.S. drone, in an unusual attack that inflamed tensions over the CIA drone campaign.

According to Pakistani officials, three missiles were fired into a compound in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province about 5 a.m. local time, a rare strike outside the Pakistani tribal areas near the Afghan border that are usually targeted by drones.

Pakistani officials say the drone hit a madrassa, or Islamic seminary, killing six people, including two teachers. The dead included Maulvi Ahmad Jan and Maulvi Hameedullah, who were top surrogates for Sirajuddin Haqqani, the second in command of the Haqqani militant group, which has ties to al-Qaida.

A U.S. official disputed that the strike was aimed at a madrassa. Instead, the official said, the target was a compound associated with the Haqqani network, which is accused of multiple attacks against American forces in Afghanistan.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged that a madrassa was in the vicinity but said it was not damaged. U.S. officials have seen no indication of civilian casualties, he said.

Umar Khan Bangash, a local politician who lives in the area, said the missile hit the 15-room seminary. He and other Pakistani officials say the madrassa is frequently used by refugees from Afghanistan and suspected militants.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.